1 2026:CGHC:5184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 451 of 2021 • Mr. Vinod Agrawal S/o Late Shri Dhwajaram Agrawal, Aged About 62 Years R/o Gopal Rice Mill, Dhabra Road, Kharsia Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus • Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Represented By Managing Director, Mittal Complex, Ground Floor, Opp. Ghanshyam Chamber, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 30/01/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) (for short ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.246/2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has filed a complaint under provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act of 1986’) before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Raigarh (for short ‘District Forum’) alleging deficiency in service against the respondent, which was registered as Complaint Case No.61/2007. The complaint was decided DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 on 30.01.2008 directing the respondent to return the vehicle in question to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order, otherwise it will have to suffer for further loss as claimed by the complainant. The petitioner was also directed to make payment of remaining amount of finance within a period of 3 months, failing which he will be required to bear cost of the respondent to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. It has also been held in that order that the petitioner had not paid the entire amount of finance and it is also responsible for creating unpleasant controversy between the parties. That order of the District Forum was challenged by the respondent before the State Commission and came to be dismissed being barred by limitation in Appeal No.347/2008. After the appeal of the respondent is dismissed, an execution proceeding under Section 27 of the Act of 1986 was filed by the petitioner. The Executing Court passed an order to return the vehicle involved and pay compensation of Rs.600/- per day with effect from 07.05.2007. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission. By the order impugned, the order passed by the District Executing Court, was modified and the respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,440/- to the petitioner along with interested at the rate of 6% from the date of passing of the final award in the Complaint Case No.61/2007, i.e., 30.01.2008. The petitioner challenged the said order in a revision before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (for short ‘National Commission’), however, as the same was not found maintainable in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Karnataka Housing Board Versus K.A. Nagamani, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 424 and was dismissed and liberty was given to challenge the order of State Commission dated 19.11.2010 before the appropriate forum, this is how this writ petition was filed assailing the impugned order. 3 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that return on behalf of respondent has been filed to indicate that they would comply the impugned order dated 19.11.2010 in its letter and spirit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the above, this writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondent to comply the order impugned dated 19.11.2010. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of and it is observed that the direction made in paragraph 10 of the order dated 19.11.2010 in Appeal No.246/2007 by the State Commission shall be complied with by the respondent within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Deepti Jha